Re: Grand Betrayal Of Science Principles - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:14:41 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 07:23:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Grand Betrayal Of Science Principles - Lehmberg
>From: Duncan Ives Lewis <iveslewis@yahoo.com>
>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
>Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
>Subject: Grand Betrayal Of Science Principles
>Originally posted to 'Whispers' by Ives Lewis
>Tuesday, 11 June 2002, at 5:02 p.m.
http://www.junjun.com/cgi-bin/boards/whispers/config.pl?read=3D32786
>Blinded by "Science"
Blinded by "Science" -- as a conscious choice, worse.
>Have you ever participated in a discussion and realized that
>there was a fundamental flaw in another's position, but could
>not quite put your finger on it?
Yes, sir. That and very occasionally not only being able to
place a finger on it but grasp the flaw by its slimy little neck
and drag it kicking and screaming to the table for the same kind
of desection that would be performed upon it were the error to
be found with regard to _my_ invention or position. The
skeptibunkies insist that they can competently wield a sword
that they will pretend does not cut both ways. You speak to this
very well in this paper.
>Recent discussions with
>debunkers have me thinking about their positions on UFOs -
>particularly one post, not written by a debunker, that included
>the following statement:
>"There are two avenues of scientific research, and both are
>necessary to gain any level of advancement in science. They are
>empirical and speculative. And, for some reason, the skeptics,
>as well as many believers, leave out the speculative end of
>research."
I think that's because they are quite comfortable where they
are: with work that they think is _done_, and with laurels they
think they can _rest_ on. That's why the vaster amount of
funerals are only an improvement to the species.
>It was an excellent point. Moreover, I realized something. Most
>of us here in the 'believer' category (I hate the label) have
>accepted and even valued much of the work of the debunkers,
>recognizing the contribution made by weeding out the weaker
>cases.
Well yeah -- but on another level they are _still_ egregiously
dishonorable because it is just that kind of case (the weaker
one) they give all their attention to. Like an ambitious
district attorney keen to avoid the hard to win, unpleasant, or
unpopular cases to enhance a good conviction rate, the SB's
avoid the really interesting cases like a plague.
>On one level, it would appear that we all have the same
>goal of finding truth. Not to pick on Oberg, but in thinking
>back on his posts, I've yet to see him acknowledge any factors
>in any cases that would support the ETH.
That _is_ a sticky point, isn't it. Don't admit (or
acknowledge) that which you don't have the competence to debate.
I guess that's why Stanton Friedman wins all _his_. <no little
grinny thing>
>Where is the
>willingness to speculate based on the available evidence?
What is the evidence that it will disrupt the status quo or
invalidate the mainstream? That's where the willingness is
throttled as a babe in arms!
>One
>example of this curious absence is his response to the 1967
>Malmstrom incident. I cannot quote him from memory. But to me,
>the substance of his response was rather impatient: 'yes yes,
an
>unexplained case that deserves to be investigated,' and so on
>and so forth.
"...but how about that Mets and Braves game?" he would deftly
change the subject, thinking "hoo-boy... don't wanna go
_there_..."
>No acknowledgement whatsoever of the behavioral
>aspects of the case which pointed away from some kind of random
>prosaic event. No willingness to speculate on the basis of
>evidence that literally jumps from the case.
>Why?
There _is_ a reason, though, even if it is difficult to parse
out and may _remain_ unknown.
>The best debaters concede points to their opponents when the
>point is won. The refusal on the part of Oberg and others to
>ever concede behavioral or observational characteristics that
>suggest anything other than a prosaic explanation is
suspicious.
In extremis!
>Dictionary.com gives the following definition to the
"scientific
>method":
Oh they hate _this_... be prepared to have your arguement
completely ignored and your character attacked.
>"The principles and empirical processes of discovery and
>demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for
>scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of
>phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the
>phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness
>of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies
>the hypothesis."
It just comes right out and almost says it doesn't it? That is,
"Go where the data leads..."
>I see that the phrase "observation of phenomena" is included.
>The debunker viewpoint seems to put blinders on for the most
>obvious, intriguing behavioral aspects of incidents such as
>Malmstrom. It appears to be a deliberate effort not just to give
>such factors negligible importance, but to disregard them
>entirely.
If _you_ don't signify, you don't _have_ to qualify!
>Instead, time is spent promoting unidentified prosaic
>explanations that offer nothing to the debate except dead
>weight. This is then masqueraded as a scientific approach, and
>those of us who question this are treated condescendingly.
Seems... insane, doesn't it?
>If we contrast those actual practices to the ideals of the
>scientific method as defined, we find they are inconsistent in
>the most fundamental ways possible.
You _have_ to do it, make your denial _at_ the most fundamental
level, to get that SB ruse to work. If they take one step, make
just _one_ admission... they a slipping down a terrifying slope.
I read it written here before. The SB has to be _right_ about
every _one_ of their proclamations, ordinations, conjectures,
and pontifications. His antithesis has to be right about just
one... Is it any _wonder_ that they hang on so assiduously...
>The debunker method does not
>only involve observation of phenomena; it also involves
>disregarding factors inconsistent with a preconceived final
>position.
Right! Deny, deny, deny from the outset. Don't _take_ that first
step.
>It does not involve the formulation of a hypothesis
>concerning the phenomena; it instead involves the promotion of
>unidentified prosaic explanations consistent with the
>preconceived final position.
Yes.
>And while the debunkers have
>shouted shrilly their criticism that experimentation is not
>possible to test the ETH hypothesis, their failure to even name
>their proposed prosaic explanations, exemplified by Oberg's
>failure to do so in Malmstrom, marks the ultimate hypocrisy. How
>can an unidentified theory be tested?
How can one look for something the mainstream gives every other
indication is _not_ there? The agendas of some make hypocrisy
no problem at all, as long as the ends are being met, the means
are immaterial.
>This can only be defined as a grand betrayal of the fundamental
>guiding principles of science.
...Forgetting the grand betrayals of fundamental guiding
principles of other things as well... UFOs likely tie all of
them together. There _are_ "-other- people" across the "river"
and the impetus of the mainstream would have us pretend they are
not there. But damn -- we keep seeing the smoke of their
campfires...
Good post, sir, ime... I predict you will _not_ be debated.
Lehmberg@snowhill.com
~~=D6~~
EXPLORE "Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his VSN URL.
http://www.alienview.net
JOHN FORD RESTORATION FUND -- John will be released eventually.
He'll need a tax free cash stake to get on his feet. Let's put
one together for him; the bigger it is -- the more attention he
gets. It could have been you. E-mail for detail. $350.00 pledged
-- $200.00 collected!
"I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite.
What others see from afar, I leave far behind me."
- Giordano Bruno, scourged by the scabrously specious scurrilous.